HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU MA No.501/2009 c/w MA No.517/2009 Reserved on: 30.01.2026 Pronounced on: 13.02.2026 Uploaded on: 13.02.2026 MA No.501/2009 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No.1, Town Hall Building, Jammu Through its Sr. Divisional Manager, Dr. R.K.Dupper, Age 48 years ....Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate Versus 1. Vandana Gour alias Vandana Sharma Wd/o Anil Sharma 2. Master Parth Sharma (Minor) through Mother (respondent No.1). 3. Smt. Kamla Sharma W/o Sh. Ved Parkash 4. Ved Parkash Sharma S/o Late Ram Dass All residents of Quarter No.158, Sarwal Colony, Jammu. 5. Madan Lal S/o Sardari Lal Gupta R/o H.No.391, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu 6. Kulvinder Singh S/o Santokh Singh R/o Sarore Adda, Samba 7. Sukhvinder Singh @ Buntoo S/o Dhian Singh Caste Labana Sikh r/o Sunjwan, Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba ...Respondent(s) 8. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. B.O. College Road, Kathua Through I/C MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 2 Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK08-7129). Through:- Mr. Raghu Mehta, Advocate for R-1 to 4 MA No.517/2009 1. Vandana Gour alias Vandana Sharma, age 33 years Widow of Late Sh. Anil Sharma 2. Master Parth Sharma, age 09 years (Minor son) of Late Sh. Anil Sharma through petitioner No.1 natural mother/guardian. 3. Smt. Kamla Sharma age 54 years W/o Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma 4. Ved Parkash Sharma age 61 years S/o Late Sh. Ram Dass All residents of Quarter No.158, Sarwal Colony, Jammu. ….Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. B.O. Canal Road, Jammu through its I/C Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK02X-1731) 2. Madan Lal S/o Sardari Lal Gupta R/o H.No.391, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu (Owner of the Bus No.JK02X-1731) 3. Kulvinder Singh S/o Santokh Singh R/o Sarore Adda, Samba District samba (Owner of Bus No.JK02X-1731) 4. Sukhvinder Singh @ Buntoo S/o Dhian Singh Caste Labana Sikh r/o Sunjwan, Vijaypur, Tehsil and District Samba (Driver of the Bus NO.JK02X-1731) 5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. B.O. College Road, Kathua Through its I/C Branch Manager (Insurer of Bus No.JK08-7129) 6. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Jagdev Singh R/o Village Billawar, Tehsil Billawar District Kathua (Owner of the Bus No.JK02-7129) 7. Nardev Singh S/o Sh. Isher Singh R/o village Tilla, Tehsil Billawar District Kathua (Driver of the Bus No.JK08-71209 ...Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Amrit Sarin, Advocate for R-1 MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 3 Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT MA No.501/2009 1. This is an appeal against the award dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in file No.706/Claim titled Vandna Gour alias Vandana Sharma and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.8,12,376/- minus the interim compensation, if any received by respondent Nos.1 to 4, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum and the appellant-Insurance Company along with respondent No.8 -New India Assurance Company have been directed to satisfy the award. The Oriental Insurance Company alone has chosen to file appeal whereas respondent No.8-New India Assurance Company has accepted the award. MA No.517/2009 2. The is an appeal by the claimants-Vandna Gour and others seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, in terms of the impugned award dated 13.08.2009 passed in file No.706/Claim titled Vandna Gour alias Vandna Sharma v. Oriental Insurance Limited and others. MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 4 3. Having regard to the fact that both these appeals arise out of an award dated 13th August, 2009, passed in claim petition titled Vandna Gour and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, as such, are taken up for consideration and disposal together. Factual Matrix 4. On 01.11.2007, at about 9 am the deceased Anil Kumar, husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent No.2 and son of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Claimant) along with few others was travelling in a Maruti Car bearing Registration No.JK02M-0615 from Jammu to Dharmshalla. The deceased along with others met with an accident near Berero Khad near Barian Camp Supwal Tehsil and District Samba, when it was crushed between two offending busses bearing Registration Nos.JK02X-1731 and JK028-7129, which were coming from opposite direction in high speed driven by their drivers in rash and negligent manner. Anil Kumar- who was Husband of respondent No.1, father of respondent No.2 and son of respondent Nos.3 and 4, died on spot. 5. With a view to claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [“the Act”], respondent No.1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking a total compensation of Rs.53 lakh along with interest @ 12% p.a. The claim petition was inter alia MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 5 contested by the appellant-Insurance Company. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in all the claim petitions arising out of the accident, including the claim petition under consideration: “1. Whether an accident occurred on 1.-11-2007 at Barero Khad near Baria Camp Supwal Tehsil and District Samba by involvement of two vehicles No.JK08 7129 and No.JK02X 1731 being driven in the hands of respective drivers in which deceased namely Anil Sharma, Neelam Gupta, N.D.Gupta and Sushil Gupta received fatal injuries? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners in each case are entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether drivers of both vehicles at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicles in contravention of terms and conditions of policy of insurance, RC, route permit and fitness? OPR 1 and 5 4. Whether accident has occurred by the contributory negligence by the drivers of both vehicles, if so how and what is its effect? OPR 1 & 5 5. Whether claim petition are bad for misjoinder of parties, if so how? OPR 5 6. Whether on the date of accident vehicle No.JK02X 1731 had been transferred by the erstwhile owner, if so how and what it its effect? OPR 1 7. Relief. O.P. Parties.” 6. With a view to discharge the burden of proof, the respondent No.1- one of the complainants examined herself and PW-Baljeet Singh, an employee of the Forest Protection Force. On the basis of the evidence that was led by the parties including respondent No.1 herein, issue No.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been decided in favour of the claimants and against the Insurance Companies. MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 6 7. So far as issue No.2 is concerned, which pertains to the entitlement of the respondent-claimants to compensation, the Tribunal having considered the statements of claimant-Vandna Gour and PW-Baljeet Singh, came to the conclusion that the monthly salary of the deceased-Anil Kumar was Rs.6985/-per month. Deducting 1/3rd on account of personal expenses and applying the multiplier of 14, the tribunal computed the compensation. The respondents-claimants were held entitled to Rs.8,12,376/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till liquidation. 8. Insofar as the appeal of the Insurance Company is concerned, I do not find any substantial ground urged to find fault with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Amrit Sarin, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance-Company, that the Tribunal did not appreciate that the respondent No.1 was entitled to draw full salary for a period of seven years and has awarded the compensation without deducting the amount, the claimant would get during these seven years. He, however, does not dispute the amount of compensation granted on other aspects. 10. Per contra, Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant, who has also filed a separate appeal would seek enhancement of compensation on the ground that the MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 7 Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd on account personal expenses, whereas it should have been 1/4th in view of the number of dependants. It is also the case of the respondent-claimant that while computing compensation payable to him, the Tribunal did not apply the correct multiplier, which, in the instant case, was 15 keeping in view the age of the deceased as 36 years. The enhancement of compensation is also sought on the ground that having regard to the age of the deceased, there ought to have been increase in the income of the deceased on account of future prospects, which in the instant case would be 50% of the annual income. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal of the Insurance Company, which is devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. The only plea taken by Mr. Amrit Sarin, leaned counsel for the Insurance Company, to assail the award is that, the amount which the wife of the deceased has received on the account full salary for seven years ought to have been deducted while computing compensation. The plea taken is without substance and cannot be accepted, for, the family of the deceased would also be entitled to the monetary benefits, which they have received from the Government on account of the death of the deceased, had he died a natural death. MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 8 12. Seven years salary, pension, PF, insurance and gratuity etc cannot be treated as “pecuniary advantage” arising out of accident and, therefore, cannot be deducted. Such bnefits, as observed above, are unrelated to the accidents. [ see Vimal Kumar and others v. Kishore Devi and others, (2013) 7 SCC 476 and Helen Rebello v. Maharashtra SRTC (1999) 1 SCC 90]. This legal position is reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment of Hanumantharaju v. Akram Pasha, 2025 INSC 682. 13. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Sarin in case of Krishna and others v. Tek Chand and others, 2024 ACJ 443 is distinguishable on facts. In the aforesaid case Hon’ble Supreme Court was not considering statutory payments received by the dependents of the deceased employee but a payment received on account of death of an employee as a result of road accident. 14. We, however, find substance in the submissions of Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant, that the Tribunal has failed make any addition on account of future prospects. The Tribunal has applied the deduction of 1/3rd , whereas it should have been 1/4th keeping in view the number of dependents. The Tribunal has also erred in applying the multiplier of 14 instead of 15. Amount granted on account of consortium is also required to be modified in terms of the MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 9 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others. 15. For all these reasons, I hold the respondent-claimant entitled to following amount of compensation:- i) Taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6985/-, making an addition of 50% in terms of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, monthly income comes to (6985+ 3492.50)= Rs.10.447.50. Deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, monthly loss of income would be Rs.7,858/-. Thus, the annual loss of income comes to 7858 x 12= Rs.94296/-. Applying the multiplier of 15, as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corp. and anr (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of income comes to (94296 x 15) =Rs.14,14,440/-. Under conventional heads, the claimant shall be entitled to i) Funeral expenses : 15,000 ii) Loss of consortium to widow and son@ 40,000 each : Rs.80,000/- iii) Loss of estate to parents: Rs.15,000/- Total : Rs.15,24,440/- The aforesaid amount minus the amount already received shall become payable to the respondent NO.1-claimant with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Rest of the terms of the impugned MA Nos.501/2009 & 517/2009 10 award shall remain intact. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the modified award and deposit the balance amount before the Registry of this Court. The Registry shall release the amount in terms of the modified award in favour of the claimant after verification and identification. The award passed by the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal of the respondent-claimant shall stand disposed of. The appeal of Insurance Company is, however, dismissed. (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge JAMMU 13.02.2026 Vinod, Secy Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2026.02.18 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document